Mathathi 25:55 for 9.8 km

ventolin^2 wrote:

this is formula for smooth uphill/downhill

with distance = d, elevation or decline = h, actual time = T :

adjusted time = (d^2 * T) / ( d^2 - (2ghT))

Yes, doc, there is the constraint on elevation loss as well (0.1% maximum or maybe even smaller than that). Again, I would like to see the splits, by leg, of all the primary teams to see what the differences are in (e.g., m/sec) across athletes and across legs. The bigger the differences bigger on legs and the small within legs by similar quality athletes the less reliable the degree of 'super time' I would apply to this at least very good performance.

26mi235 wrote:

Again, I would like to see the splits, by leg, of all the primary teams to see what the differences are in (e.g., m/sec) across athletes and across legs.

So you haven't bothered to click on the results link Brett posted? I can't read the names but there are really thorough listings of exactly what you keep saying you want to see and cool graphs that I think are each team's stage-by-stage position.

{quote]The bigger the differences bigger on legs and the small within legs by similar quality athletes the less reliable the degree of 'super time' I would apply to this at least very good performance.[/quote]

What?

ogkgho wrote:

fractional? both 1/100 and 999999/1000000 are fractions.. and what's this slowing on the straights that you're comparing to?

i'm not doing the full calculation but you can get an idea from hear :

26'15 pace is 63.00s/lap or 31.5s for 200m

in lane 1 with +1 wind ( it doesn't work with 0 wind ?! ) at 0 altitude, corrected time is 31.568

in lane 8 with +1 wind at 0 altitude, corrected time is 31.596

difference of 0.028s for 200m or 0.056s for 1 lap or

~ 1.4s difference between running a 26'15 in lane 8 as opposed to lane 1

lane 8 is used as proxy for a straight 10k track ( it isn't, but it gives you an idea ) - extrapolating to a completely straight track is probably going to be in region of 4 - 5s for 26'15